Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:14:22AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: >> Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > No, you don't. You updated the db package (which is definitely part of the >> >> That's a bug ;-( > > This is what I am saying for years now but received only really stupid answers > in response to that like: "We don't consider this a problem for us > internally". > >> We rebuild that often that people often asked: What's the difference >> between version -9 and -20? And we have to answer: Just rebuild with >> newer packages. It would be great to only increase the number if a > > So what you are basically saying is that you fear that some people ask > quetions and prefer incorrectness of the system over just answering these > questions? Didn't expect you to be that reclusive.
I was a bit short: The problem is especially with release products. Your release today -9 and in a month -20 - with just one change. This confused a lot of customers and partners, they asked for the other 10 changes... > >> dependend package changes the ABI. > > Well, until you did implement that just expect _every_ rebuild to result in an > ABI change. If you expected the ABI not to change you wouldn't need to > rebuild. > >> So, neither solution is really good. > > Huh? What is the real _problem_ with just telling the truth that the package > number increased due to a dependency rebuild? People just not getting it. :-(. Trust me, this is a real problem. But it might be different for FACTORY and released products... >> Could you file a bugreport against basesystem, please? I'll take care >> of it and discuss with Rudi once he's back from vacation how to >> finally solve this. > > Ok, did so now. Is there also a chance that this discussion will not again > take place completely behind the curtain without getting any resons for the > final decision. Let's try it ;-) Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
pgp2AUW2y6Zbg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
